University Medical Centre Mannheim

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data for causes of vision impairment and blindness form an important basis of recommendations in public health policies. Refreshment of the Global Vision Database with recently published data sources permitted modelling of cause of vision loss data from 1990 to 2015, further disaggregation by cause, and forecasts to 2020. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analysed published and unpublished population-based data for the causes of vision impairment and blindness from 1980 to 2014. We identified population-based studies published before July 8, 2014, by searching online databases with no language restrictions (MEDLINE from Jan 1, 1946, and Embase from Jan 1, 1974, and the WHO Library Database). We fitted a series of regression models to estimate the proportion of moderate or severe vision impairment (defined as presenting visual acuity of <6/18 but ≥3/60 in the better eye) and blindness (presenting visual acuity of <3/60 in the better eye) by cause, age, region, and year. FINDINGS: We identified 288 studies of 3 983 541 participants contributing data from 98 countries. Among the global population with moderate or severe vision impairment in 2015 (216·6 million [80% uncertainty interval 98·5 million to 359·1 million]), the leading causes were uncorrected refractive error (116·3 million [49·4 million to 202·1 million]), cataract (52·6 million [18·2 million to 109·6 million]), age-related macular degeneration (8·4 million [0·9 million to 29·5 million]), glaucoma (4·0 million [0·6 million to 13·3 million]), and diabetic retinopathy (2·6 million [0·2 million to 9·9 million]). Among the global population who were blind in 2015 (36·0 million [12·9 million to 65·4 million]), the leading causes were cataract (12·6 million [3·4 million to 28·7 million]), uncorrected refractive error (7·4 million [2·4 million to 14·8 million]), and glaucoma (2·9 million [0·4 million to 9·9 million]). By 2020, among the global population with moderate or severe vision impairment (237·1 million [101·5 million to 399·0 million]), the number of people affected by uncorrected refractive error is anticipated to rise to 127·7 million (51·0 million to 225·3 million), by cataract to 57·1 million (17·9 million to 124·1 million), by age-related macular degeneration to 8·8 million (0·8 million to 32·1 million), by glaucoma to 4·5 million (0·5 million to 15·4 million), and by diabetic retinopathy to 3·2 million (0·2 million to 12·9 million). By 2020, among the global population who are blind (38·5 million [13·2 million to 70·9 million]), the number of patients blind because of cataract is anticipated to rise to 13·4 million (3·3 million to 31·6 million), because of uncorrected refractive error to 8·0 million (2·5 million to 16·3 million), and because of glaucoma to 3·2 million (0·4 million to 11·0 million). Cataract and uncorrected refractive error combined contributed to 55% of blindness and 77% of vision impairment in adults aged 50 years and older in 2015. World regions varied markedly in the causes of blindness and vision impairment in this age group, with a low prevalence of cataract (<22% for blindness and 14·1-15·9% for vision impairment) and a high prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (>14% of blindness) as causes in the high-income subregions. Blindness and vision impairment at all ages in 2015 due to diabetic retinopathy (odds ratio 2·52 [1·48-3·73]) and cataract (1·21 [1·17-1·25]) were more common among women than among men, whereas blindness and vision impairment due to glaucoma (0·71 [0·57-0·86]) and corneal opacity (0·54 [0·43-0·66]) were more common among men than among women, with no sex difference related to age-related macular degeneration (0·91 [0·70-1·14]). INTERPRETATION: The number of people affected by the common causes of vision loss has increased substantially as the population increases and ages. Preventable vision loss due to cataract (reversible with surgery) and refractive error (reversible with spectacle correction) continue to cause most cases of blindness and moderate or severe vision impairment in adults aged 50 years and older. A large scale-up of eye care provision to cope with the increasing numbers is needed to address avoidable vision loss. FUNDING: Brien Holden Vision Institute.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) represent a promising tool for new clinical concepts in supporting cellular therapy. Bone marrow (BM) was the first source reported to contain MSCs. However, for clinical use, BM may be detrimental due to the highly invasive donation procedure and the decline in MSC number and differentiation potential with increasing age. More recently, umbilical cord blood (UCB), attainable by a less invasive method, was introduced as an alternative source for MSCs. Another promising source is adipose tissue (AT). We compared MSCs derived from these sources regarding morphology, the success rate of isolating MSCs, colony frequency, expansion potential, multiple differentiation capacity, and immune phenotype. No significant differences concerning the morphology and immune phenotype of the MSCs derived from these sources were obvious. Differences could be observed concerning the success rate of isolating MSCs, which was 100% for BM and AT, but only 63% for UCB. The colony frequency was lowest in UCB, whereas it was highest in AT. However, UCB-MSCs could be cultured longest and showed the highest proliferation capacity, whereas BM-MSCs possessed the shortest culture period and the lowest proliferation capacity. Most strikingly, UCB-MSCs showed no adipogenic differentiation capacity, in contrast to BM- and AT-MSCs. Both UCB and AT are attractive alternatives to BM in isolating MSC: AT as it contains MSCs at the highest frequency and UCB as it seems to be expandable to higher numbers.

Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup "chronic primary pain." In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.

1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table 1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.Table 1: Glossary of ICD-11 terms.The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Üstün and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.Figure 1: Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to the IASP Council on an annual basis.2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines.7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma26; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more).15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely.21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain.22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present.36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders,32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache.2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain,3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches.1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities.24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain).12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs30; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation.9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The authors are members of the Classification of Pain Diseases Task Force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), which gave logistical and financial support to perform this work. We acknowledge the contributions of the following IASP Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Abdominal & Pelvic Pain SIG, Acute Pain SIG, Cancer Pain SIG, Neuropathic Pain SIG and the Orofacial Pain SIG, and the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). Author contributions: R.-D. Treede, W. Rief, and A. Barke contributed equally to this topical review.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) have emerged as major regulators of immune responses in cancer and other pathological conditions. In recent years, ample evidence supports key contributions of MDSC to tumour progression through both immune-mediated mechanisms and those not directly associated with immune suppression. MDSC are the subject of intensive research with >500 papers published in 2015 alone. However, the phenotypic, morphological and functional heterogeneity of these cells generates confusion in investigation and analysis of their roles in inflammatory responses. The purpose of this communication is to suggest characterization standards in the burgeoning field of MDSC research.

The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12). FINDINGS: Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9-65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17-0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5-359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34-4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5-350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88-4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1-1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9-997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9-57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9-65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (-36·7%). The number of people with moderate and severe visual impairment also increased, from 159·9 million (80% UI 68·3-270·0) in 1990 to 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5-359·1) in 2015. INTERPRETATION: There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world's population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected. These observations, plus a very large contribution from uncorrected presbyopia, highlight the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels. FUNDING: Brien Holden Vision Institute.

BACKGROUND: Hydrocortisone is widely used in patients with septic shock even though a survival benefit has been reported only in patients who remained hypotensive after fluid and vasopressor resuscitation and whose plasma cortisol levels did not rise appropriately after the administration of corticotropin. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 251 patients to receive 50 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone and 248 patients to receive placebo every 6 hours for 5 days; the dose was then tapered during a 6-day period. At 28 days, the primary outcome was death among patients who did not have a response to a corticotropin test. RESULTS: Of the 499 patients in the study, 233 (46.7%) did not have a response to corticotropin (125 in the hydrocortisone group and 108 in the placebo group). At 28 days, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients in the two study groups who did not have a response to corticotropin (39.2% in the hydrocortisone group and 36.1% in the placebo group, P=0.69) or between those who had a response to corticotropin (28.8% in the hydrocortisone group and 28.7% in the placebo group, P=1.00). At 28 days, 86 of 251 patients in the hydrocortisone group (34.3%) and 78 of 248 patients in the placebo group (31.5%) had died (P=0.51). In the hydrocortisone group, shock was reversed more quickly than in the placebo group. However, there were more episodes of superinfection, including new sepsis and septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocortisone did not improve survival or reversal of shock in patients with septic shock, either overall or in patients who did not have a response to corticotropin, although hydrocortisone hastened reversal of shock in patients in whom shock was reversed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00147004.)

BACKGROUND: Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is caused by the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase, the product of the Philadelphia chromosome. Imatinib mesylate, formerly STI571, is a selective inhibitor of this kinase. METHODS: A total of 532 patients with late--chronic-phase CML in whom previous therapy with interferon alfa had failed were treated with 400 mg of oral imatinib daily. Patients were evaluated for cytogenetic and hematologic responses. Time to progression, survival, and toxic effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: Imatinib induced major cytogenetic responses in 60 percent of the 454 patients with confirmed chronic-phase CML and complete hematologic responses in 95 percent. After a median follow-up of 18 months, CML had not progressed to the accelerated or blast phases in an estimated 89 percent of patients, and 95 percent of the patients were alive. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxic effects were infrequent, and hematologic toxic effects were manageable. Only 2 percent of patients discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Imatinib induced high rates of cytogenetic and hematologic responses in patients with chronic-phase CML in whom previous interferon therapy had failed.

BACKGROUND: Pilot trials suggest that the intracoronary administration of autologous progenitor cells may improve left ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 204 patients with acute myocardial infarction to receive an intracoronary infusion of progenitor cells derived from bone marrow (BMC) or placebo medium into the infarct artery 3 to 7 days after successful reperfusion therapy. RESULTS: At 4 months, the absolute improvement in the global left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in the BMC group than in the placebo group (mean [+/-SD] increase, 5.5+/-7.3% vs. 3.0+/-6.5%; P=0.01). Patients with a baseline LVEF at or below the median value of 48.9% derived the most benefit (absolute improvement in LVEF, 5.0%; 95% confidence interval, 2.0 to 8.1). At 1 year, intracoronary infusion of BMC was associated with a reduction in the prespecified combined clinical end point of death, recurrence of myocardial infarction, and any revascularization procedure (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary administration of BMC is associated with improved recovery of left ventricular contractile function in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Large-scale studies are warranted to examine the potential effects of progenitor-cell administration on morbidity and mortality.

miRWalk is an open-source platform providing an intuitive interface that generates predicted and validated miRNA-binding sites of known genes of human, mouse, rat, dog and cow. The core of miRWalk is the miRNA target site prediction with the random-forest-based approach software TarPmiR searching the complete transcript sequence including the 5'-UTR, CDS and 3'-UTR. Moreover, it integrates results other databases with predicted and validated miRNA-target interactions. The focus is set on a modular design and extensibility as well as a fast update cycle. The database is available using Python, MySQL and HTML/Javascript Database URL: http://mirwalk.umm.uni-heidelberg.de.

BACKGROUND: Data on causes of vision impairment and blindness are important for development of public health policies, but comprehensive analysis of change in prevalence over time is lacking. METHODS: We did a systematic analysis of published and unpublished data on the causes of blindness (visual acuity in the better eye less than 3/60) and moderate and severe vision impairment ([MSVI] visual acuity in the better eye less than 6/18 but at least 3/60) from 1980 to 2012. We estimated the proportions of overall vision impairment attributable to cataract, glaucoma, macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, trachoma, and uncorrected refractive error in 1990-2010 by age, geographical region, and year. FINDINGS: In 2010, 65% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 61-68) of 32·4 million blind people and 76% (73-79) of 191 million people with MSVI worldwide had a preventable or treatable cause, compared with 68% (95% UI 65-70) of 31·8 million and 80% (78-83) of 172 million in 1990. Leading causes worldwide in 1990 and 2010 for blindness were cataract (39% and 33%, respectively), uncorrected refractive error (20% and 21%), and macular degeneration (5% and 7%), and for MSVI were uncorrected refractive error (51% and 53%), cataract (26% and 18%), and macular degeneration (2% and 3%). Causes of blindness varied substantially by region. Worldwide and in all regions more women than men were blind or had MSVI due to cataract and macular degeneration. INTERPRETATION: The differences and temporal changes we found in causes of blindness and MSVI have implications for planning and resource allocation in eye care. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Fight for Sight, Fred Hollows Foundation, and Brien Holden Vision Institute.

There is extensive evidence showing that improving eye health contributes directly and indirectly to achieving many Sustainable Development Goals, including reducing poverty and improving work productivity, general and mental health, and education and equity. Improving eye health is a practical and cost-effective way of unlocking human potential. Eye health needs to be reframed as an enabling, cross-cutting issue within the sustainable development framework.

The therapeutic landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has profoundly changed over the past 7 years. Most patients with chronic phase (CP) now have a normal life expectancy. Another goal is achieving a stable deep molecular response (DMR) and discontinuing medication for treatment-free remission (TFR). The European LeukemiaNet convened an expert panel to critically evaluate and update the evidence to achieve these goals since its previous recommendations. First-line treatment is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; imatinib brand or generic, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib are available first-line). Generic imatinib is the cost-effective initial treatment in CP. Various contraindications and side-effects of all TKIs should be considered. Patient risk status at diagnosis should be assessed with the new EUTOS long-term survival (ELTS)-score. Monitoring of response should be done by quantitative polymerase chain reaction whenever possible. A change of treatment is recommended when intolerance cannot be ameliorated or when molecular milestones are not reached. Greater than 10% BCR-ABL1 at 3 months indicates treatment failure when confirmed. Allogeneic transplantation continues to be a therapeutic option particularly for advanced phase CML. TKI treatment should be withheld during pregnancy. Treatment discontinuation may be considered in patients with durable DMR with the goal of achieving TFR.

The recent development of quinoline-based PET tracers that act as fibroblast-activation-protein inhibitors (FAPIs) demonstrated promising preclinical and clinical results. FAP is overexpressed by cancer-associated fibroblasts of several tumor entities. Here, we quantify the tumor uptake on ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT of various primary and metastatic tumors to identify the most promising indications for future application. <b>Methods:</b>⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT scans were requested by various referring physicians according to individual clinical indications that were considered insufficiently covered by ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT or other imaging modalities. All PET/CT was performed 1 h after injection of 122–312 MBq of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04. We retrospectively identified 80 patients with histopathologically proven primary tumors or metastases or radiologically unequivocal metastatic lesions of histologically proven primary tumors. Tumor uptake was quantified by SUV_max and SUV_mean (60% isocontour). <b>Results:</b> Eighty patients with 28 different tumor entities (54 primary tumors and 229 metastases) were evaluated. The highest average SUV_max (&gt;12) was found in sarcoma, esophageal, breast, cholangiocarcinoma, and lung cancer. The lowest ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI uptake (average SUV_max &lt; 6) was observed in pheochromocytoma, renal cell, differentiated thyroid, adenoid cystic, and gastric cancer. The average SUV_max of hepatocellular, colorectal, head–neck, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer was intermediate (SUV 6–12). SUV varied across and within all tumor entities. Because of low background in muscle and blood pool (SUV_max &lt; 2), the tumor-to-background contrast ratios were more than 3-fold in the intermediate and more than 6-fold in the high-intensity uptake group. <b>Conclusion:</b> Several highly prevalent cancers presented with remarkably high uptake and image contrast on ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT. The high and rather selective tumor uptake may open up new applications for noninvasive tumor characterization, staging examinations, or radioligand therapy.

Microsatellite instability determines whether patients with gastrointestinal cancer respond exceptionally well to immunotherapy. However, in clinical practice, not every patient is tested for MSI, because this requires additional genetic or immunohistochemical tests. Here we show that deep residual learning can predict MSI directly from H&E histology, which is ubiquitously available. This approach has the potential to provide immunotherapy to a much broader subset of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. A deep residual learning framework identifies microsatellite instability in histology slides from patients with cancer and can be used to guide immunotherapy.

This article describes a proposal for the new diagnosis of chronic primary pain (CPP) in ICD-11. Chronic primary pain is chosen when pain has persisted for more than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress and/or functional disability, and the pain is not better accounted for by another condition. As with all pain, the article assumes a biopsychosocial framework for understanding CPP, which means all subtypes of the diagnosis are considered to be multifactorial in nature, with biological, psychological, and social factors contributing to each. Unlike the perspectives found in DSM-5 and ICD-10, the diagnosis of CPP is considered to be appropriate independently of identified biological or psychological contributors, unless another diagnosis would better account for the presenting symptoms. Such other diagnoses are called "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom secondary to an underlying disease. The goal here is to create a classification that is useful in both primary care and specialized pain management settings for the development of individualized management plans, and to assist both clinicians and researchers by providing a more accurate description of each diagnostic category.

The application of nanotechnology concepts to medicine joins two large cross-disciplinary fields with an unprecedented societal and economical potential arising from the natural combination of specific achievements in the respective fields. The common basis evolves from the molecular-scale properties relevant to the two fields. Local probes and molecular imaging techniques allow surface and interface properties to be characterized on a nanometer scale at predefined locations, while chemical approaches offer the opportunity to elaborate and address surfaces, for example, for targeted drug delivery, enhanced biocompatibility, and neuroprosthetic purposes. However, concerns arise in this cross-disciplinary area about toxicological aspects and ethical implications. This Review gives an overview of selected recent developments and applications of nanomedicine.

The redefinition of neuropathic pain as "pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system," which was suggested by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) in 2008, has been widely accepted. In contrast, the proposed grading system of possible, probable, and definite neuropathic pain from 2008 has been used to a lesser extent. Here, we report a citation analysis of the original NeuPSIG grading paper of 2008, followed by an analysis of its use by an expert panel and recommendations for an improved grading system. As of February, 2015, 608 eligible articles in Scopus cited the paper, 414 of which cited the neuropathic pain definition. Of 220 clinical studies citing the paper, 56 had used the grading system. The percentage using the grading system increased from 5% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Obstacles to a wider use of the grading system were identified, including (1) questions about the relative significance of confirmatory tests, (2) the role of screening tools, and (3) uncertainties about what is considered a neuroanatomically plausible pain distribution. Here, we present a revised grading system with an adjusted order, better reflecting clinical practice, improvements in the specifications, and a word of caution that even the "definite" level of neuropathic pain does not always indicate causality. In addition, we add a table illustrating the area of pain and sensory abnormalities in common neuropathic pain conditions and propose areas for further research.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with considerable health risks. Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can mitigate these risks, effectiveness can be reduced by inadequate adherence to treatment. We evaluated the clinical safety and effectiveness of upper-airway stimulation at 12 months for the treatment of moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: Using a multicenter, prospective, single-group, cohort design, we surgically implanted an upper-airway stimulation device in patients with obstructive sleep apnea who had difficulty either accepting or adhering to CPAP therapy. The primary outcome measures were the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; the number of apnea or hypopnea events per hour, with a score of ≥15 indicating moderate-to-severe apnea) and the oxygen desaturation index (ODI; the number of times per hour of sleep that the blood oxygen level drops by ≥4 percentage points from baseline). Secondary outcome measures were the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), and the percentage of sleep time with the oxygen saturation less than 90%. Consecutive participants with a response were included in a randomized, controlled therapy-withdrawal trial. RESULTS: The study included 126 participants; 83% were men. The mean age was 54.5 years, and the mean body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) was 28.4. The median AHI score at 12 months decreased 68%, from 29.3 events per hour to 9.0 events per hour (P<0.001); the ODI score decreased 70%, from 25.4 events per hour to 7.4 events per hour (P<0.001). Secondary outcome measures showed a reduction in the effects of sleep apnea and improved quality of life. In the randomized phase, the mean AHI score did not differ significantly from the 12-month score in the nonrandomized phase among the 23 participants in the therapy-maintenance group (8.9 and 7.2 events per hour, respectively); the AHI score was significantly higher (indicating more severe apnea) among the 23 participants in the therapy-withdrawal group (25.8 vs. 7.6 events per hour, P<0.001). The ODI results followed a similar pattern. The rate of procedure-related serious adverse events was less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this uncontrolled cohort study, upper-airway stimulation led to significant improvements in objective and subjective measurements of the severity of obstructive sleep apnea. (Funded by Inspire Medical Systems; STAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01161420.).